In this case there is a park - with tennis & basketball courts, children's play equipment, BBQ equipment, skate ramps and a cafe (at North Adelaide station) *directly* across the road from one of Adelaide's highest density residential areas and the main hub of the Bowden development. The park is essentially part of the Bowden development's back yard.

People (including children) are going to cross here regardless of whether there is a formal crossing or not. It makes sense to put one in so that they can cross safely. Ideally the original plan of an overpass should be implemented but anything is better than nothing.

An 800m round trip in the height of summer next to a sizzling bit of bitumen along a footpath with no trees is not an insignificant distance. Vehicular traffic is not the world's number one priority.

I live jut off Greenhill Rd so can I please have a pedestrian crossing so I can go and play in the parklands?

There are three mid-block pedestrian-activated crossings on Greenhill Road opposite the South Parklands if I have counted correctly, as well as eight signalised intersections with pedestrian facilities. That's a range a bit over twice as long as Park Terrace that presently has three intersections, two underpasses, and the relatively new uncontrolled at-level crossing point that is proposed to have lights added. It seems they are about equally served. neither has the crossings evenly spaced.

Let's note that the signalised crossing is not ever intended to be the alternative to the overpass. The pedestrian overpass was to be along the train corridor, and has been implemented instead as the underpass. The signalised crossing is a seperate thing, and was always on the cards once the level crossing was removed, irregardless of an over/underpass at that location.

Let's note that the signalised crossing is not ever intended to be the alternative to the overpass. The pedestrian overpass was to be along the train corridor, and has been implemented instead as the underpass. The signalised crossing is a seperate thing, and was always on the cards once the level crossing was removed, irregardless of an over/underpass at that location.

My mistake - I could have sworn I had seen plans for it almost directly opposite Plant 4 but I must be misremembering.

Here's some maps from the urban design guidelines. This particular copy is from 2014, but I think these maps were unchanged from earlier versions. At this point they were still anticipating the train line to be completely underground, with the pedestrian bridge in line with second street (above the train corridor), and a square at the second street/gibson st intersection. Seperate pedestrian crossing also marked between fourth and fifth streets, which is where it ended up.

I think The Standard development is dead. Noticed some of the hoarding taken down yesterday, which put my hopes up that they were getting ready for construction, but it seems to have been scrubbed from the internet — the website now redirects to Arcadian Property with no mention of it anymore on their website, all social media promotion has been deleted, and the one remaining link on the Life More Interesting site leads to a 404.

Do developers own the corner block on Port Road/Park Terrace? Hopefully some 'iconic' buildings go up there.

No, RenewalSA only have up to the train line. The Port Rd / Park Tce corner is owned by Raptis Investments. It has been rezoned, and I believe that they have considered doing something, but probably waiting until everything else is developed before cashing in.

I agree, it would be a great spot for a landmark building — I think something like the Nishi Building in Canberra would be absolutely perfect.